The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. No opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was WithdrawnDMacks is correct. No deadline and no rush.

Oppose on principle, as the creator of the template is currently in the midst of a 2-week block as a result of interactions with and an ANI thread started by the nominator here. There's no deadline, there are multiple concerns about the suitability of the proposed replacement, and the editor with possibly the most at stake is unable to respond. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No longer used. All transclusions appear to have been replaced with the much better and recently updated {{lang}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Convert to a wrapper. Whilst I am quite sympathetic to YmBlanter's cause, the numbers are insufficient and Zack is correct as to how things work w.r.t templates. (non-admin closure)∯WBGconverse 12:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I created a wrapper version for this template based on {{Infobox settlement}}; the test cases can be found here. The wrapper can also add a dynamic map showing the location of the district, which is relevant as we still have only few good location maps of Russian districts. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I am not sure why you are trying to disrupt Wikipedia by destroying all Russia-related templates, but this one has already been discussed and was kept. Since unfortunately this one will be destroyed as well, I promise to ping everybody who votes delete in this discussion every time I discover issues with the wrapper - and I am sure there will be a lot as previous nomination demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) The template was previously nominated, kept, and there are no new arguments or, indeed, any policy-based arguments for creating a wrapper. A district is not even a settlement.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

May I please also add that there is not a single policy-related argument for deleting the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"trying to disrupt Wikipedia" As an admin, you know that you are required to assume good faith. Your comment fails that requirement considerably, and it is you who is shamefully threatening to be disruptive. Furthermore, the result of the previous discussion, which was five years ago, was (emphasis added): "no consensus. There may be consensus for making it a wrapper...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a deletion proposal, it will be converted into a wrapper, as the nomination says.

The last nomination was five years ago, and at the time no-one had taken the time to create a sandbox version beforehand. This time everyone can see exactly what we are !voting on.

I'm not a threat to Wikipedia or the Russian WikiProject, I'm taking the time to remake the infoboxes because I want them to be better. Clearly we have different ideas of what better is when it comes to templates, but that's no reason to assume I'm out to disrupt the project.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Good, fine, I apologize for that, but I strongly disagree that this is an improvement. If no policy-based arguments have been provided we are heading for a deletion review.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong support - no reason for this not to be converted to simply use {{Infobox settlement}}. Seems like the work is already there. Frankly I don't think this really even needs to be discussed at TFD? All that is being done is the template is being converted to a different format. @Underlying lk: please correct me if I'm wrong here, but it appears to me that there will be no changes to how the template is actually implemented on pages. It will simply be rendered differently? As for the lack of policy, that was stated above, I think it is pretty common knowledge that whenever possible to make use of existing templates and up-merge to reduce overhead. I don't have a specific policy that I can link to off the top of my head, but NOTHING here is disruptive. Particularly since Underlying lk has gone out of their way to do the work already. Seems to me they are going the extra mile to make sure there are no objections. Frankly, had it been me, I would have just WP:BOLDly converted the page to a wrapper and moved on. Ymblanter I too find you lack of WP:AGF disturbing. You threw out a baseless accusation when a user had gone the extra mile to make sure they were doing things right. Remember TFD = Template for DISCUSSION, not deletion... Still don't understand your comment about heading for a deletion review. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sure if this is a common knowledge, it must have been codified in the policies, right? And someone can provide the policy? Concerning the context (note that I already apologize), I am essentially the only user now working with templates related to Russian localities and administrative divisions. Within a month, all of them have been nominated here by the people who do not have intention to actually use these templates, but want to change them as a matter of principle. None of the previous nominations managed to have these templates converted, because more people were using them, and we were able to convince the closers that some information is not going to be rendered properly, so that the conversion will not be an improvement, quite the opposite. However, by now most of us left the project, and I am clearly getting outnumbered. By not-policy-based arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've already addressed the previous TfD, five years ago, above; its conclusion was : "no consensus. There may be consensus for making it a wrapper...". You have not demonstrated that any information is not going to be rendered properly. And as for policy, you have given no policy-based reason why making this a wrapper is not acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

To start with, there is no policy that all infoboxes must become wrappers, as you have been told very clearly many many times.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"as for policy, you have given no policy-based reason why making this a wrapper is not acceptable". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really. This is not how Wikipedia works. If you want to break something which is not broken you need a policy-based reason for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

And if you guys want to standartize everything, why do not you start with {{Infobox U.S. state}} (talk)? It is only in use in 50 articles, and there is no prospect of expanding it to other articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but I have another hypothesis. You just know what the result would be, and do not want to listen to what the discussion participants are going think about this nomination. And here you are safe, you just need to throw at me a bunch of abbreviations, implying I am not familiar with the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Redundant to {{Infobox swim team}}, with which every instance should be replaced, before deletion. Only 17 transclusions.

A TfD four years ago was closed as "The result of the discussion was keep/don't merge. A Large Merge Proposal for all NCAA sports team templates is on the table, and a concrete proposal seems to be gestating, but isn't here yet. No prejudice to re-nomination...", but that proposal seems not to have been carried through, and the editor behind it is no longer active Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Not really redundant, so a merger will need to be done; and the swim team template really does not seem a good merge target. There's the whole "Titles" section of the college swim team infobox that needs merger + the whole colors thing which is specific to US college teams. Merging all the NCAA sport templates seems a far better idea. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Merge and delete. Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Propose mergingTemplate:Infobox accounting body with Template:Infobox organization.
All accounting bodies are organisations. The more specific template, which has only 71 transclusions, has just one accounting-specific parameter, |IFAC_membership_date=, which even in the example in its documentation has a value of Not a member; the more general template has |affiliation=, which should suffice for IFAC members. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral. the |students_num= would need merging over as it is used by at least one page. Also on that page |members_designations= is used but not found in the organisation template. |administering_organ= also needs merging. There are four (inc. one in the nom) specific parameters here and I am not sure that having 4 specific parameters is enough reason to merge these templates. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 08:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose as proposed. I understand that Infobox accounting body probably should be merged to somewhere, but is Infobox organization seriously the best we can do? —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure, that's part of the reason my oppose was 'weak'. I just think 'organization' is really broad and we ought to have a target more specific than that. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Weak support. I'm all for the idea of merging the templates. My biggest concern is the parameters that are specific to the accounting body template. A lot of the parameters in that template can be translated over to a similar one in the organization template, but there's a few (such as |students_num= as mentioned by Dreamy Jazz above) that don't really have a good equivalent. I'm no expert on template code, so while it would definitely be feasible to add these specific parameters into the organization template, I worry as well about this causing the template to be bloated, or this serving as a precedent for the template to become bloated later on down the line with similar merges. JaykeBird (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Parameters specific to the accounting body template don't seem unique to them apart from |IFAC_membership_date= which as mentioned above can be integrated reasonably; and |members_designations= doesn't seem to add much value; the same with |administering_organ= (does it matter if the administering organ is designated a council or a general body?). Overall not very different from {{Infobox organization}} and so should be merged. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Support per the arguements above; simplicity is always to preferred. Britishfinance (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Support the organisation infobox is adequate to contain details of an accounting body, no compelling reason to have separate template. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The template consists of a set of hardcoded instances of {{cite web}}. As article content, the references should not be stored in templates. When a source is changed to something else (example) existing uses of the template are no longer guaranteed to support the facts that they previously supported. Prior to my recent edits, the access dates were hardcoded there too, which is misleading. {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}}, and {{cite doi}} were substituted then deleted/deprecated for similar reasons. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The template is heavily in use, and sources have been stable for the last several years, I was using all of them as of today. But the point of the template is exactly to keep the reference to all these documents in the same place, and then, if one of the sources gets moved, it could be easily fixed without a necessity to make several thousands edits. The only policy-based argument against the template I have seen was that lead should be in better prose, and this indeed should be solved eventually (the work is ongoing), but just deleting the template with thousands of inclusions without any alternative will only lead to disruption, and there will be no benefit to the project whatsoever.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The same was true of {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}}, and {{cite doi}} prior to deletion/deprecation. T3 (policy) indicates that we shouldn't have hardcoded instances of other templates as a template. I have no idea what your talking about with the lead should be in better prose [...] bit. — JJMC89(T·C) 06:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you believe that the template is eligible for speedy deletion (which I obviously disagree with) you should have nominated it for speedy deletion and seen what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - it seems self evident that the simple deletion of this template will cause significantly more harm than it will bring benefits. Fenix down (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep:. This is not at all comparable with {{cite pmid}}, {{cite isbn}}, or {{cite doi}}; nor does T3 (which is misquoted above) apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep per Ymblanter. And it was a hugh mistake to delete cite doi. With cite doi you could just write {{cite doi|doi=number}}, and a bot would fill in the rest of the data. As usual it was deleted, and nobody made an alternative. Christian75 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).